Bitcoin: Will ETFs Make History Again – or Become History?

[Cookdata]

Quantum computing "may" break what we have today, but we can always move to another chain, which would mean we would be protected anyways. The only issue is, I have no idea how the old ones would be protected, think about it, we have so many wallets with bunch of bitcoins in it, and some of them are untouched for 10+ years, could be either one issue like that guy who cashed out 80k bitcoins, come back after many years, or it could be someone who forgot their keys.

Those could be stolen, but that wouldn't really impact the market much, it would change the price if they sell it, but that is it, end of it, then we move to another level and continue like nothing happened and price would continue to soar like always. So, quantum computing won't ruin bitcoin at all.

Why do I think this Quantum Computer theory is sometimes cook and targeted towards Bitcoin. Computer isn't just a threat to Bitcoin alone but including all other encryption like the banks and anything you know that that can be encrypted today. If the theory becomes a working system, know for sure that it wouldn't come out, it's going to be hidden from the world because alot of things will go wrong if that enters into the wrong hand, it's just like someone isn't to build a biochemical weapon that will threaten human existence.

Quantum Computers might have potential but the bad side of it will be more than the good side of it. If there is going to be one, we should expect an encryption that will be even more harder to break by Quantum computers. It takes a problem to get a solution and it takes a solution to brings a problem, just like using integration to differentiation and vice versa. I'm not worry about this quantum of a thing, Bitcoin developers don't sleep when it comes to Bitcoin concern.

[Alpen]

BlackRock saw this as a start of something big and they are smart as well as experienced enough to take advantage of this milestone for their Bitcoin Spot ETF application.

Bitcoin Spot ETFsare already making history. The Blackrock IBIT offering is one of their best performing new ETFs in history. People want exposure to Bitcoin & Larry Fink knew this, that’s why he pushed so hard for approval. Bitcoin Spot ETFs are only going to grow in popularity as the years go by. It’s a new investment class & because of its track record, lots of people are interested.

BlackRock is just playing the ETF game. They profit from the fees no matter what — success or failure doesn’t really change much for them. If things go south, only the investors take the hit.

Since 2018, they’ve quietly shut down 39 ETFs. What makes people think the Bitcoin ETF can’t be their 40th ‘anniversary’ closure?

[Lucius]

Miners are mostly after profit, so they will mine what brings in more profit. After all, someone is still mining BCH today, right?

I’d say even more — BCH could easily break back into the top 10. It handled this year way better than a lot of big altcoins and keeps pushing up the ranks. Would be interesting to see what’s really behind this rise.

I think the best days of this altcoin are long behind it considering the way it was created and why it was created. It has lost almost 90% of its value since its max ATH, but it clearly still has good "marketing" in the sense that they manage to convince a lot of people that it is real Bitcoin.

However, I think that it is the miners who hold it this high, because they have shown that it does not matter to them what they mine as long as it brings them profit - I am referring to ordinal nonsense and similar projects that at some moments literally paralyzed the blockchain.

[JeffBrad12]

Bitcoin Spot ETFsare already making history. The Blackrock IBIT offering is one of their best performing new ETFs in history. People want exposure to Bitcoin & Larry Fink knew this, that’s why he pushed so hard for approval. Bitcoin Spot ETFs are only going to grow in popularity as the years go by. It’s a new investment class & because of its track record, lots of people are interested.

100% and these quantum computing threat is a concern but a bit overblown as of now, none of those quantum computer are functional enough to breach the encryption. We need to remember that there's also legal implication on misusing quantum computer for breach and only limited people can get hands on it like those large corporations with billions dollar valuation.

I'm sure at the time before QC even become a threat we'd find a new encryption to overcome the threat.

[Alpen]

Miners are mostly after profit, so they will mine what brings in more profit. After all, someone is still mining BCH today, right?

I’d say even more — BCH could easily break back into the top 10. It handled this year way better than a lot of big altcoins and keeps pushing up the ranks. Would be interesting to see what’s really behind this rise.

I think the best days of this altcoin are long behind it considering the way it was created and why it was created. It has lost almost 90% of its value since its max ATH, but it clearly still has good "marketing" in the sense that they manage to convince a lot of people that it is real Bitcoin.

However, I think that it is the miners who hold it this high, because they have shown that it does not matter to them what they mine as long as it brings them profit - I am referring to ordinal nonsense and similar projects that at some moments literally paralyzed the blockchain.

Bitcoin Cash really tanked after Amaury Séchet’s team left. He was pushing things in the right direction — they were actually ahead of Bitcoin Core when it came to getting smart contracts onto the BCH blockchain.

If they somehow managed to bring Séchet back, that alone could recover 50% of the losses, no joke. I know I’d personally grab some BCH right away if that ever happened

[Lucius]

Bitcoin Cash really tanked after Amaury Séchet’s team left. He was pushing things in the right direction — they were actually ahead of Bitcoin Core when it came to getting smart contracts onto the BCH blockchain.

If they somehow managed to bring Séchet back, that alone could recover 50% of the losses, no joke. I know I’d personally grab some BCH right away if that ever happened

I personally wouldn't buy that altcoin even if I knew it would explode with the price (which of course won't happen), for the reason that I am one of those who will never support those behind the attack on Bitcoin. If profit is your only motivation, there are many other altcoins that have the potential to be worth much more in the future than they are today.

[Alpen]

I personally wouldn't buy that altcoin even if I knew it would explode with the price (which of course won't happen), for the reason that I am one of those who will never support those behind the attack on Bitcoin. If profit is your only motivation, there are many other altcoins that have the potential to be worth much more in the future than they are today.

Bitcoin Cash isn’t really an altcoin — it’s a fork. What does that mean? The name “Bitcoin” or “Bitcoin Cash” depends purely on which chain has the longer proof-of-work. If Bitcoin miners ever switched to BCH, that chain would instantly become the “real” Bitcoin.

Is that scenario realistic? It actually is, given how centralized the hashrate is among a few major pools. Here’s a fun “conspiracy theory” for you: imagine Trump putting pressure on big miners whose shares are traded in the US. They band together, fork Bitcoin, and push a “Bitcoin America.” The hashrate follows, the White House gets its own version of Bitcoin. Sounds wild? Well, that’s how consensus works.

[Lucius]

Bitcoin Cash isn’t really an altcoin — it’s a fork. What does that mean? The name “Bitcoin” or “Bitcoin Cash” depends purely on which chain has the longer proof-of-work. If Bitcoin miners ever switched to BCH, that chain would instantly become the “real” Bitcoin.

Now you're starting to sound like one of those BCH shills who at one point flooded this forum, but all disappeared without a trace and never appeared again. You can call that altcoin whatever you want, but it's still an altcoin and nothing more.

Is that scenario realistic? It actually is, given how centralized the hashrate is among a few major pools. Here’s a fun “conspiracy theory” for you: imagine Trump putting pressure on big miners whose shares are traded in the US. They band together, fork Bitcoin, and push a “Bitcoin America.” The hashrate follows, the White House gets its own version of Bitcoin. Sounds wild? Well, that’s how consensus works.

In a game where power and money come first, anything is possible - and with the current US administration, nothing really would surprise me. Although I think that a fork could happen in the BlackRock kitchen rather than from the policy itself, which is much more focused on using the next 3+ years of power to profit from the altcoins market.

[Zaka1221]

ETF types are very interesting and many people are interested and OP is looking like he is interested in that . He made this thread for the discussion but I think ETF is not safe for the people and that is not new in that Market because we are watching Cryptocurrency as the best currency which will be dominant in the future. Cryptocurrency is the future and millions people are taking more interest because it will be best for the future. We saw that currency when its price was very low and now it's price is at top because governments are changed and they are supporting cryptocurrency and no government is supporting ETF .I think Cryptocurrency will make good future in the World as we saw this coin as best on the World.

[justdimin]

Bitcoin Cash isn’t really an altcoin — it’s a fork. What does that mean? The name “Bitcoin” or “Bitcoin Cash” depends purely on which chain has the longer proof-of-work. If Bitcoin miners ever switched to BCH, that chain would instantly become the “real” Bitcoin.

Now you're starting to sound like one of those BCH shills who at one point flooded this forum, but all disappeared without a trace and never appeared again. You can call that altcoin whatever you want, but it's still an altcoin and nothing more.

That was a very horrible dark period ffs, I am glad that it's over. I mean in "theory" he is right that if miners moved there, yeah it would, but users would also have to agree. Just because miners moved, doesn't mean we are going to accept, we can still use this same chain, be a bit more slow and expensive, but we can.

So even when he is right, he is wrong, and he declines to realize what Cash people missed, just because they were miners, and got all miners with them, as long as you do not convince the people, you are going to just stay as a fork, and not be the real deal. Look at segwit for example, we are not using legacy, we did change, we just didn't move to what they want, so it's possible in theory as we saw, just not to that shitty thing.

[yhiaali3]

Quantum computing is still far from being able to hack Bitcoin wallets, but it's not unlikely in the near future. By then, we won't just have to fear hacking Bitcoin wallets; everything that relies on cryptographic security will be at real risk.

In any case, ETF companies have invested billions of dollars in Bitcoin, so it's only natural that the security of their wallets is a top priority. I believe they won't skimp on a few million dollars for quantum-resistant crypto developers to keep their billion-dollar Bitcoin wallets safe.

[Alpen]

That was a very horrible dark period ffs, I am glad that it's over. I mean in "theory" he is right that if miners moved there, yeah it would, but users would also have to agree. Just because miners moved, doesn't mean we are going to accept, we can still use this same chain, be a bit more slow and expensive, but we can.

So even when he is right, he is wrong, and he declines to realize what Cash people missed, just because they were miners, and got all miners with them, as long as you do not convince the people, you are going to just stay as a fork, and not be the real deal. Look at segwit for example, we are not using legacy, we did change, we just didn't move to what they want, so it's possible in theory as we saw, just not to that shitty thing.

Essentially, a hostile takeover of a network can be orchestrated through miners and a hard fork. If you look at Bitcoin, it's not hard to see that the majority of the hashrate is divided between Chinese and US-based pools.

With Trump's potential return, the network could become more politicized. What if a president decides that China is trying to 'seize' control of Bitcoin? Could they hypothetically order American pools to consolidate and launch a 51% attack?

What are your thoughts on this scenario?